Discussion of in-game politics. Please post "In character" in here, IE as in your game persona or character. This is not for discussion ABOUT the game or about politics in the game, but actual political debate.

I'm OK with this new pricing, but then again I am not a heavy carbon producer. From the comments on this board so far it seems that carbon is the corner stone of a large section of the economy. As such the smaller adjustment will probably hurt less for most colony producers. However this does sound like carbon is a large bubble and RAM has the right idea in trying to wean us off it as the only moneymaking commodity. Maybe we should institute a regular review of LM pricing by a group of people? Say once every 6 months or so to gauge the effects of changes as well as try to mitigate such bubbles in the future. A player based Fed so to speak to suggest a monetary policy to the president perhaps?

delfromanc wrote:I'm OK with this new pricing, but then again I am not a heavy carbon producer. From the comments on this board so far it seems that carbon is the corner stone of a large section of the economy. As such the smaller adjustment will probably hurt less for most colony producers. However this does sound like carbon is a large bubble and RAM has the right idea in trying to wean us off it as the only moneymaking commodity. Maybe we should institute a regular review of LM pricing by a group of people? Say once every 6 months or so to gauge the effects of changes as well as try to mitigate such bubbles in the future. A player based Fed so to speak to suggest a monetary policy to the president perhaps?

Regards

Delf Romanc

Good thoughts DR.

I was planning on revisiting the entire pricing plan in about 3 months to see if anything needed adjusting anyway. I feel comfortable with the ASC helping to process that review.

"The UNCA is not your boss!" ~ Jessica SteeleFan Fiction from an old timer - RAM Memories

To clarify, I am entirely in favor of T2 items and the proposed prices for them. I have said my piece and will leave any further comments about carbon prices to the carbon barons and those who would be most affected by the price change.

I really don't want to have to lend my cheerleader outfit to Davh...it wouldn't fit him and he'd tear out all the seams and stuff

Given the cost of setup and upkeep to an OSB, what makes you think that these T2 prices are too much?I find them too low. Given what I spent to buy blueprints, build factories, haul raw mats, buy and pay workers, keep them fed and healthy, research the product, then haul it to market. I am sure these prices are too low. If you want the T1s to be worth more the price of T2s needs to be much higher. At best you can get 10 tons per factory a day if you spend time researching you can get it higher, but let's face it. Workers on an OSB are not happy. We still do not have enough doctors and medical supplies to help them, so you will never get top production out of them. Even on a planet, the factory workers are not as productive as miners or farmers. Likely due to the fact that robots are used for the harder work. These T2 products need to be worth more. I am all for adding them to the markets but the price needs to be greater.

For 1 of my OSBs the daily cost to feed and keep my workers some what happy is 12M a day. If that OSB ran at full capacity it would only produce enough products to make 28M a day. Being that I haul it my self to the LM and got top price for it. That would mean I am only making 16M a day in the best case. The reality is it will be much less. So I am for adding T2 but want to see a higher price.

Now as for carbon. I still do not think the price is too high. I think the other mats prices are too low. Iron is the most need for building and should command a higher price. Titanium is the least used. I think the whole pricing system needs to be rethought through. I am against the current price changes to T1

davh62 wrote: Yes there will defo be some crossover from politics to gameplay involved in this thread. Unavoidable. It's understandable that players will err on the side that suits their own individual gameplay. Glad to see it's stirred up the forum to get players to post on a new feature that can only enhance gameplay.

The crossover kills the fun of roleplay for me, as it gets to serious. It is aboutchanges that effects how the game is, and I think with such a low playerbase its very fragile to unfortunate changes. Roleplay works better for discussions between senators for gates, co-operation of econmy between systems, the way you run prime etc.But the discussions Ram has started here are very good, which is more important.

I myself as the richest & biggest hauler to LM will see the biggest drop of income This is false statement

For the record, I ment the part of you being the one loosing the most income was false, since as I see it, others may get their income almost completely gone. This is what I see (and what happened last time) before and after:You get whats in red, I get the profits in green and yellow. me and you are just examples here ofc, what I mean its important that players who enjoyys colonies should do that and get a profit. And my next project will keep increasing the colony profit for all, if succesful. But with a big drop now it wouldnt be doable, and the mnonth I spent on it already would be wasted, so sorry for being grumpy.

LadyHawk wrote: but since so much infrastructure has already been built to support carbon production

Very good point, everything I (and probably many others) have is buildt around an carbon economy. Its all linked together, and that is why I got so upset when i saw a big drop was suggested quietly under the flag of ading T2. It could remove the porpuse of all I have litterly used years to build. One cant just shift from only producing one thing to everything else quickly. You need to build up the alternatives before you start slowly decreasing carbon. If T2 doesnt end up having the effect we want, and carbon is dropped at the same time, you got very little economy in game left.

RAM wrote:Let's take a step back and please answer this question.

Good suggestion, I think you took to much into one suggestion/discussion. Adding T2 has way more support and is more important to get moving faster.

RAM wrote:How about this? It drops carbon only by 25 credits a ton.

I can live with that.Your new price list suggestion seems to only include tolerable numbers as far as I can see. Would like to see more arguments for what each price would be best though, we I have mostly duscussed carbon so far

davh62 wrote:Yeah I mean it's not like any pricing remains permanent. Ram can easily review via the council.

Actually the argument for a big drop, was that it would only be possible to chagne prices once:

RAM wrote:

Loke wrote:What I mean by slow and careful changes would be for example decreasing carbon price by only 25 per month, giving players time to adjust along the way, avoiding pissing people off to the point where they are not having fun any more.

I would have no issue with this if the UNCA was more responsive to our whims. I fear that we will get one adjustment every so often. I suspect a President could get 2-3 per term before the UNCA feeling annoyed by the constant changes. This would make the small steps a little more difficult.

If several revisions and changes are possible, tehn the big drop idea is definetly pointless.

davh62 wrote:Either works as far as I'm concerned. I would suggest a poll vote based on your revision asap. Lets get dis moving!

What?? We have just started discussing it, relax a bit. Its not like everyone agrees on everything and discussion is just a vaste of time. I hope Ram keeps to the 1 week discussions (or more if heavy discussions) and then 1 week for votes.

Mooncrest wrote: the price paid by the Starstations should be set at 160% and nor 130% of the material cost.[/color]

However, we should not forget that the mainstay of the economy should be trading with other Pilot's Stock Markets and not just dumping material and product at the Starstations.

I support this, T2 needs to be a bit highher to be interesting and to be worth trading between players to.

BoshingTong wrote:<Very well written and good arguemnts by Bosh>

I fully support this, best arguments so far imo. Wish i had read this before I started making this massive post

BoshingTong wrote:I am back and refreshed. I will ask this question first.

Given the cost of setup and upkeep to an OSB, what makes you think that these T2 prices are too much?I find them too low. Given what I spent to buy blueprints, build factories, haul raw mats, buy and pay workers, keep them fed and healthy, research the product, then haul it to market. I am sure these prices are too low. If you want the T1s to be worth more the price of T2s needs to be much higher. At best you can get 10 tons per factory a day if you spend time researching you can get it higher, but let's face it. Workers on an OSB are not happy. We still do not have enough doctors and medical supplies to help them, so you will never get top production out of them. Even on a planet, the factory workers are not as productive as miners or farmers. Likely due to the fact that robots are used for the harder work. These T2 products need to be worth more. I am all for adding them to the markets but the price needs to be greater.

For 1 of my OSBs the daily cost to feed and keep my workers some what happy is 12M a day. If that OSB ran at full capacity it would only produce enough products to make 28M a day. Being that I haul it my self to the LM and got top price for it. That would mean I am only making 16M a day in the best case. The reality is it will be much less. So I am for adding T2 but want to see a higher price.

Now as for carbon. I still do not think the price is too high. I think the other mats prices are too low. Iron is the most need for building and should command a higher price. Titanium is the least used. I think the whole pricing system needs to be rethought through. I am against the current price changes to T1

We could add higher profits for OSB produced items then colony produced. This would make sense to me. We could also increase them all and see if the UNCA will accept it.

Here is one at 40% profit. Is that better? Again, I am concerned about dumping too much money into the economy is the reason why I am slow to suggest super high prices. It may not be an issue, but the UNCA likes small steps. I do think we could get price adjustments in 3 months, but doubt we would be heard if asked for sooner unless something was really causing major issues.

Admiral Hall is very stressed this week. I am in no rush to wrap this all up. I am happy to give us time to process this until we have enough of a consensus to take a formal vote.

And lastly, I am presenting things for input and discussion. Some are using absolute language and stating they do not support certain things, but are not offering hard numbers of what they would feel good with. This leaves me to guess and present something else only to be pounded by because it was not good enough. If you disagree, please be willing to offer guidance to what you would feel better about. We do not want PC to take their crayons home, but to stay and color all this in. We are honestly all just guessing about a lot of this. There is no way to really know how all this will affect the economy overall. In my viewpoint, almost anything is better than the status quo. Change is needed. Some will be painful, some will be beneficial. We do need to minimize the pain, but nothing good comes without a little pain at first.

"The UNCA is not your boss!" ~ Jessica SteeleFan Fiction from an old timer - RAM Memories